ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the private complaint pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mayiladuthurai in S.T.C.No.486 of 2018, alleging that the reply notice sent by the petitioners herein through their lawyer contains defamatory messages and therefore, the petitioners are liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 499 of I.P.C.

2. From the petition, it appears that the 1st petitioner is working as a teacher in a Government school and the 2nd petitioner is his wife. In view of money transaction, the notice has been caused by the respondent/complainant calling upon the petitioners to pay the money. In response to the reply notice sent by these petitioners through their lawyer dated 14.02.2018 taking exception to certain passages in the reply notice, the present private complaint has been filed alleging the offence under Section 499 of I.P.C.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to quash the said complaint would submit that what is stated in the reply notice was not on the publication to the public, but it is only for the respondent herein. As a reply notice which should protect the interest of the petitioners. Hence, the content found in the reply notice falls under the 9th exception.

Section 499 Exception 9 reads as below: "499-Defamation —Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

Explanation 1—It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2—It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3—An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4—No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

Ninth Exception.—Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests—It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.”

4. In such circumstances, as on date the reply notice sent through the counsel is only a general statement about the character of the respondent herein and nothing defamatory per se is found, particularly when the reply notice is sent to protect the interest of the petitioners who have been informed by the respondent herein that they are contemplating the civil proceedings for recovery of money. It is however always open to the respondent herein if any evidence given during the trial in support of the content found in the reply notice, which according to the petitioners is defamatory to prosecute, such statement does not fall under the exceptions.

5. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition to quash the complaint is allowed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.

21.09.2022 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No rpl To The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mayiladuthurai.

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

rpl Crl.M.P.Nos.2041 and 5145 of 2019

21.09.2022